Saturday, March 12, 2005

Mitt Catching It

Governor Mitt Romney's seemingly petty attempt at preventing at least some gay marriages got an official challenge Friday. Eight same-sex couples and 13 Massachusetts town or city clerks challenged the application of laws forbidding marriages by out-of-staters if such weddings would not be valid in their home states.

The Commonwealths application of §§11-12 to non-resident same-sex couples violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The right to marry is a privilege or immunity of state citizenship, and is therefore deserving of protection under the Privilege and Immunities Clause. The Commonwealth lacks a substantial justification for its discrimination between non-resident same-sex couples and resident same-sex couples and cannot demonstrate a substantial relationship between its discrimination and its purported justifications for §§11-12.

The brief makes the case that Goodridge is the reigning law. Goodridge said that Massachusetts may not discriminate against same-sex couples who want to marry, said GLAD attorney Michele Granda. Goodridge did not say Massachusetts can discriminate if the other state discriminates.

GLAD also argues that the Governor revived the 1913 law because of his opposition to the marriages of same-sex couples, knowing that it would prevent them from marrying in the state. Before May 17, 2004, the Commonwealth never took any action to bar non-residents from marrying who could not marry in their home states.

The Commonwealth never sought information from applicants about their own states laws, said Granda. The 1913 law was taken off the shelf and dusted off for the express purpose of discriminating against gays and lesbians.

These two sections of the commonwealth marriage law are the ones civil liberties folk point out were specifically enacted to prevent interracial marriages.